CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #50 *ARREST*

[kkdj]

If she testifies truthfully, it’s almost certain that she will bury her son.

She knows his movements, she knows when KK arrived, and she knows about that fire.

Her safe bet, is to continue pleading the fifth.

And then what? Can she somehow be compelled to testify?

 

[ajaylee]

If she testifies truthfully, it’s almost certain that she will bury her son.

She knows his movements, she knows when KK arrived, and she knows about that fire.

Her safe bet, is to continue pleading the fifth.

It may be the safe bet, but if I were a juror, it would work against her - and PF.

I'm curious to hear what SF2 has to say about PF's comings and goings on Thanksgiving day, although I think his memory will continue to be surprisingly imprecise.

Of course, the defense pointed out that SF2 said he didn't notice anything unusual about PF's behavior that day, and as a policeman, SF2's training would make him a particularly good judge of what is 'unusual' behavior.

I think we're going to see a policeman who, for all his training and skills of observation, has surprisingly few actual specific memories of that afternoon - particularly regarding PF.

 

[MyBelle]

If she testifies truthfully, it’s almost certain that she will bury her son.

She knows his movements, she knows when KK arrived, and she knows about that fire.

Her safe bet, is to continue pleading the fifth.

How on earth would SF's mother know when KK arrived? She may have been busy caring for baby K or may not have been at home. Good luck to the DA in proving she knew.

Just because KK claimed SF came on to the porch during the fire doesn't mean it is true or that SF knew what was being burned. This case isn't some kind of formula fiction where we get to decide the ending. LOL

JMO

 

[GordianKnot]

And then what? Can she somehow be compelled to testify?

I think SF could be called as a hostile witness by the prosecution team.

DA May will probably weigh the benefits vs. the risks of having Ma F. up there on the stand lying her leathery hide off. If he calls her and she lies under oath, though, he can charge her with perjury, so there's that.

The DA may decide they have enough already to slip the knot over PF's neck in terms of securing a conviction that he doesn't even need to call SF.

JMO.

 

[jewelsmac]

Yeah. I think the fact that he had her helping with his animals, and picking up his medication, was somehow part of his plan to kill her.

I don’t think those events are a coincidence, considering what happened the next day.

My sense is that he planned to kill her that night, but things didn’t go according to plan.

I agree, I think perhaps he was thinking of doing it then… But something might’ve gone wrong.

Also I strongly believe that he wanted KK very involved in either the actual murder or the cleanup, which would not be accomplished if he killed her out while tending cattle.

 

[jewelsmac]

That's my point. There is no way to prove someone is lying when they respond "I don't remember" in testimony.

JMO

JMO, but I would think that in and of itself pisses a jury off. The gameplaying. No?

 

[MassGuy]

How on earth would SF's mother know when KK arrived? She may have been busy caring for baby K or may not have been at home. Good luck to the DA in proving she knew.

Just because KK claimed SF came on to the porch during the fire doesn't mean it is true or that SF knew what was being burned. This case isn't some kind of formula fiction where we get to decide the ending. LOL

JMO

She would know when KK arrived at her house. Most people know when a guest is present or not.

The DA proving what she knew, is very different from her actually knowing something.

If she tells the truth, she can provide clarity to the timeline that the prosecution has built off of his cell phone records, and KK’s statements.

We don’t get to decide an ending, the jury will do that.

Unfortunately for PF, he wrote the beginning and the middle.

Evidence, logic, and reason will finish this story.

And it is anything but a work of fiction.

 

[Dontknow?]

In case it hasn't been posted, it was a man's body found at a dump in Globeville. RIP

Man's body found at dump north of Globeville

Man's body found at dump north of Globeville

 

[ajaylee]

How on earth would SF's mother know when KK arrived? She may have been busy caring for baby K or may not have been at home. Good luck to the DA in proving she knew.

Just because KK claimed SF came on to the porch during the fire doesn't mean it is true or that SF knew what was being burned. This case isn't some kind of formula fiction where we get to decide the ending. LOL

JMO

SF's word on the fire is important as confirmation of KK's story. Yes, KK took them to a spot where there had been a fire, but right now we only have her word that the fire took place when she said it did. PF and SF are the only two people who can confirm that there actually was a fire on that evening. Only PF can confirm what was burned, although SF could give hints based perhaps on the smells or smoke.

SF is one of only a couple people who can potentially testify as to when PF arrived at the ranchette on Thanksgiving Day with Baby K.

Something that I wondered about: LE found bits of black plastic and traces of an accelerant where the fire took place. According to KK, PF set the fire inside a round tank. PF was going to 'scoop' up the remains and dispose of them elsewhere.

If the tote and firewood were in the tank when the fire was built, presumably PF 'scooped' up the whole tank. So how did black plastic and traces of accelerant get left behind?

One fake scenario: PF could claim that anything the investigators found was from an old fire that was from before KB 'disappeared'. Right now, we don't have any evidence to the contrary - not that we are aware of, anyway.

SF's testimony could also back up or refute KK's story that she ate pizza, took an ibuprofen for her headache, and took a rest. I guess she could claim that she went straight to bed after Thanksgiving Dinner and didn't wake until morning, so she had no idea there was a fire or that KK was ever there.

If I were SF, I'd be careful about playing the 'memory' card. If she paints herself as a forgetful old lady who has trouble physically getting around, she's not exactly painting a good picture for someone who has hopes of getting custody of a healthy little grandchild. Not a good fit to put a little girl in the hands of an old lady with memory issues and physical limitations. living alone on a somewhat isolated property.

 

[MassGuy]

SF's word on the fire is important as confirmation of KK's story. Yes, KK took them to a spot where there had been a fire, but right now we only have her word that the fire took place when she said it did. PF and SF are the only two people who can confirm that there actually was a fire on that evening. Only PF can confirm what was burned, although SF could give hints based perhaps on the smells or smoke.

SF is one of only a couple people who can potentially testify as to when PF arrived at the ranchette on Thanksgiving Day with Baby K.

Something that I wondered about: LE found bits of black plastic and traces of an accelerant where the fire took place. According to KK, PF set the fire inside a round tank. PF was going to 'scoop' up the remains and dispose of them elsewhere.

If the tote and firewood were in the tank when the fire was built, presumably PF 'scooped' up the whole tank. So how did black plastic and traces of accelerant get left behind?

One fake scenario: PF could claim that anything the investigators found was from an old fire that was from before KB 'disappeared'. Right now, we don't have any evidence to the contrary - not that we are aware of, anyway.

SF's testimony could also back up or refute KK's story that she ate pizza, took an ibuprofen for her headache, and took a rest. I guess she could claim that she went straight to bed after Thanksgiving Dinner and didn't wake until morning, so she had no idea there was a fire or that KK was ever there.

Yup. Her truthful testimony would be a boon for the prosecution.

I don’t see a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening though.

 

[ajaylee]

I think SF could be called as a hostile witness by the prosecution team.

DA May will probably weigh the benefits vs. the risks of having Ma F. up there on the stand lying her leathery hide off. If he calls her and she lies under oath, though, he can charge her with perjury, so there's that.

The DA may decide they have enough already to slip the knot over PF's neck in terms of securing a conviction that he doesn't even need to call SF.

JMO.

This. I think there's an old trial lawyer saying, "never ask a question of someone on the stand if you don't already know the answer".

That might very well apply here: SF's testimony could be very useful, but if she tells a different story, one in PF's favor, I don't see how the DA can prove she's lying. SF isn't worried about perjury, because it's a 'he said, she said, SF said' with no hard evidence either way (that we know of).

 

[MyBelle]

She would know when KK arrived at her house. Most people know when a guest is present or not.

The DA proving what she knew, is very different from her actually knowing something.

If she tells the truth, she can provide clarity to the timeline that the prosecution has built off of his cell phone records, and KK’s statements.

We don’t get to decide an ending, the jury will do that.

Unfortunately for PF, he wrote the beginning and the middle.

Evidence, logic, and reason will finish this story.

And it is anything but a work of fiction.

BBM. KK wasn't SF's "guest." PF is her adult son living in a multi-generational household. I doubt SF logged in or out the adult friends her son invited over or paid much attention to them at all considering there was an infant who required care and supervision.

There likely will be a grandparent on the jury who prioritizes care of their infant grandchild over playing hostess to the adult friend. If the DA thinks badgering a grandmother is a good trial strategy, by all means, he should do it..

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

BBM. KK wasn't SF's "guest." PF is her adult son living in a multi-generational household. I doubt SF logged in or out the adult friends her son invited over or paid much attention to them at all considering there was an infant who required care and supervision.

There likely will be a grandparent on the jury who prioritizes care of their infant grandchild over playing hostess to the adult friend. If the DA thinks badgering a grandmother is a good trial strategy, by all means, he should do it..

JMO

“Badgering a grandmother?”

This grandmother almost certainly knows things that could support the prosecution’s case against the killer of a mother.

No member of the jury is going to have sympathy for her if she decides to play hardball.

The stakes are too high, and the crime too grievous for that.

Her son bashed a mother’s face in with a baseball bat. I’m fully confident that the jury will be able to keep their eye on the ball here.

 

[ajaylee]

“Badgering a grandmother?”

This grandmother almost certainly knows things that could support the prosecution’s case against the killer of a mother.

No member of the jury is going to have sympathy for her if she decides to play hardball.

The stakes are too high, and the crime too grievous for that.

Keep in mind, if the prosecution 'badgers' a grandmother, the defense will be quick to slander the victim. Why should poor old grandma SF feel any sympathy for a substance-abusing, cheating, neglectful 'mother' of her son's baby?

 

[GordianKnot]

“Badgering a grandmother?”

This grandmother almost certainly knows things that could support the prosecution’s case against the killer of a mother.

No member of the jury is going to have sympathy for her if she decides to play hardball.

The stakes are too high, and the crime too grievous for that.

Her son bashed a mother’s face in with a baseball bat. I’m fully confident that the jury will be able to keep their eye on the ball here.

Great post.

I'm just trying to maintain a straight face regarding the characterization of PF as being an "adult son."

Nope! Tried. Can't do it. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

"Adult." PF...the guy who tries to get the women in his life do absolutely everything for him, up to and including bashing his baby's mother's face in with a baseball bat!

Nah. PF ain't a man.

He's a monster.

JMO.

 

[MyBelle]

SF's word on the fire is important as confirmation of KK's story. Yes, KK took them to a spot where there had been a fire, but right now we only have her word that the fire took place when she said it did. PF and SF are the only two people who can confirm that there actually was a fire on that evening. Only PF can confirm what was burned, although SF could give hints based perhaps on the smells or smoke.

SF is one of only a couple people who can potentially testify as to when PF arrived at the ranchette on Thanksgiving Day with Baby K.

Something that I wondered about: LE found bits of black plastic and traces of an accelerant where the fire took place. According to KK, PF set the fire inside a round tank. PF was going to 'scoop' up the remains and dispose of them elsewhere.

If the tote and firewood were in the tank when the fire was built, presumably PF 'scooped' up the whole tank. So how did black plastic and traces of accelerant get left behind?

One fake scenario: PF could claim that anything the investigators found was from an old fire that was from before KB 'disappeared'. Right now, we don't have any evidence to the contrary - not that we are aware of, anyway.

SF's testimony could also back up or refute KK's story that she ate pizza, took an ibuprofen for her headache, and took a rest. I guess she could claim that she went straight to bed after Thanksgiving Dinner and didn't wake until morning, so she had no idea there was a fire or that KK was ever there.

If I were SF, I'd be careful about playing the 'memory' card. If she paints herself as a forgetful old lady who has trouble physically getting around, she's not exactly painting a good picture for someone who has hopes of getting custody of a healthy little grandchild. Not a good fit to put a little girl in the hands of an old lady with memory issues and physical limitations. living alone on a somewhat isolated property.

BBM. The reason the DA wanted SF to testify at the prelim is because he needs to corroborate KK's story. The judge didn't allow it.

The burning didn't take place on Thanksgiving. Many older people I know who live on farms, go to bed early and arise early. Nothing sinister about those habits.

SF will portray herself as focused on baby K: Feeding, bathing and putting her to bed. SF wasn't living alone and it appears KB willingly allowed her baby to be there..

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

BBM. The reason the DA wanted SF to testify at the prelim is because he needs to corroborate KK's story. The judge didn't allow it.

The burning didn't take place on Thanksgiving. Many older people I know who live on farms, go to bed early and arise early. Nothing sinister about those habits.

SF will portray herself as focused on baby K: Feeding, bathing and putting her to bed. SF wasn't living alone and it appears KB willingly allowed her baby to be there..

JMO

Well we know that KB didn’t “willingly allow her baby to be there” on Thanksgiving, because she was dead.

A baby requires a great deal of attention, but that does not mean that one is completely oblivious to the goings on around them.

Some father PF was, if his mommy was the one providing all the child care when she (the baby) was in his custody.

 

[ajaylee]

Well we know that KB didn’t “willingly allow her baby to be there” on Thanksgiving, because she was dead.

A baby requires a great deal of attention, but that does not mean that one is completely oblivious to the goings on around them.

Some father PF was, if his mommy was the one providing all the child care when she (the baby) was in his custody.

SF would not want to portray herself as a limping old lady who is so focused on Baby K that she barely even notices when a large fire starts on her property, has memory issues and lives in a relatively isolated situation. That's not a person I would entrust my little child to as a full-time care-giver.

 

[MassGuy]

SF would not want to portray herself as a limping old lady who is so focused on Baby K that she barely even notices when a large fire starts on her property, has memory issues and lives in a relatively isolated situation. That's not a person I would entrust my little child to as a full-time care-giver.

Ha! That wouldn’t reflect well on anyone.

 

[SandyQLS]

I agree she's not telling the whole truth. I would not be surprised that she was taking speed, and I'm sure she was more jacked up than ever after burning the tote. I still think the body was just starting to smell when it was burnt, because of the cool temps. I don't think the gun would have held a lot of odor and if it was bloody, they probably wiped it. I was watching a program with the Body Farm doc and he specifically talked about the timeline of the odor of a decaying body and he said it would begin to smell on the second or third day, and this was a body where the weather was warmer day and night, in the summer. The body in the tote was in cooler temps, probably not higher than mid 50's during the day and possibly quite a bit cooler, and down to below freezing at night. What do you think KK is lying about?

I think KK is lying about almost everything. It's too long to list. Suffice it to say the Defense will heavily use all those lies. For example, in SW116 dated Dec 14, KK stated to investigators that PF did not ask her to take KB's phone and dispose of it. After KK acquired a top attorney, her story changed to PF instructed her to take the phone and dispose of it. Like it or not, the Defense will hone in on all of KK's lies.

KB's gun is a Ruger LCR 9mm. This type of gun is made of as much plastic as possible to make it lightweight.

A burning body is a stench. The action of bactetia begins immediately at death, releasing gases. A dead body begins to smell of decomposition immediately to a dog. I don't have a sensitive nose, and I would call it 12 hours in cool temps. Det Linda Arndt agrees with 12 hours in the JonBenet case when she whiffed decomposition as the child's body was brought upstairs from a cold winter, basement cement floor.

JMO